Psystar & Short-Sighted Linux Nerds
There's this back-alley outfit in Miami who started selling a $399 “OpenMac” computer they claim will run Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). Noooo, a computer hardware company NOT named Apple is going to have no problems naming a computer “OpenMac”. Idiots.
So now it's called the “Open Computer”, which, if you believe the people for whom this computer is for, is redundant; these are the people that hate the fact and solid justification of being able to run Mac OS X only on Apple hardware. Boo hoo.
So then this company is specious in comparing it price/performance wise to a Mac mini. The mini is specific to two different audiences: those that want to dip their toe into the Mac world and those that want a small, silent, capable Mac, where size, loudness and narrow capability are the key factors. Like the Mac mini I have running as media server and media source in my home theater setup.
This thing is a clunky box: much bigger than the mini and most likely much louder than the mini. So for the latter audience (which would include me) this box might as well be a Dell desktop box.
So let's say that those Apple-hardware-restrictions haters want the “freedom” of “openness” and “choice” of running Mac OS X on commodity hardware (which none of Apple's is, for reasons of enhanced usability, not just to be different for no reason) end up with Mac OS X on their desktop.
Hurray! They've finally gotten the OS and UI they've hated on so long! Huh? Now we've eliminated the first group, too.
But it's all about choice now, right? Mac OS X is superior for many reasons, one of which is look-and-feel consistency across all applications—except for Adobe and their stupid AMP application. “But why can't I skin the windows to look like I want them to? Why can't I have mouse-focus on the windows and auto-raise and...and...and...everything I can choose to do on my linux commodity, loud-as-the-devil's-own-noise, ugly as sin, boring as fuck, built-it-myself-while-wearing-a-tin-foil-hat-just-because-that's-how-I-roll in Mac OS X? I can do all that on Linux, so why shouldn't I be able to do that on Mac OS X?
So whoever the market is for the OpenMac OpenComputer will end up with an ugly beige box runnning Linux anyway, because Mac OS X is too restricted by Apple's insistence.
So explain to me again? Hate Apple hardware's restrictions, hate Mac OS X's restrictions people who just plain hate anything Apple makes because they're not “open” going out and buying a beige box with non-Apple-standard configurations, ending up with the problems of finding drivers for the stuff they themselves add to the Open Computer—remember, these people don't ever settle for off-the-shelf configurations—ending up stuck with an OS that doesn't let them configure the software to look like some teen angst nightmare that makes them feel in control of their computing world.
The only way the presence of this stillbirth (by all reckoning) of a machine makes any sense is as an attempt to hate on Apple's valuation and to attempt to lend an honest credence to their irrational attempts to humiliate humble Apple.
There's how to build a successful business, eh?
So if it's not intended to successfully sell machines, why does it exist? More to the point, who's funding it? That's where you'll find the real answers.
Microsoft, cold-blooded reptilian that's dying from the changing climate, goes after the small mammal that, while tiny and cute and stuffed [graphical] toy-like, has managed to thrive with aplomb.
We've seen this before.
Oh, and did I mention that Psystar warns that it's not 100% compatible with Apple's Software Update system? By their own admission and in their own words, there are “non-safe” and “not non-safe” updates for the OpenComputer running Leopard. In my book, that directly violates their claim that it runs Leopard “off the shelf”, because a significant feature of Leopard-off-the-shelf is that updates (security and improvement updates) work as advertised.
Let's see how far they get; then we'll have some real numbers of the stupidity of consumers and how some things are cliché for a good reason.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Psystar & Short-Sighted Linux Nerds.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.godofbiscuits.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2904
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Author
Tweets
Are you sure the people trying to make OSX work on any computer hate OSX, eg "They've finally gotten the OS and UI they've hated on so long!" ?
Without knowing anything about them, it sounds to me like they really like OSX and want it to be able to run on any other hardware.
I understand the tight branding of Apple -- and the benefits of keeping software tied to specific hardware.
But I also see the benefit in having wide hardware choices, if nothing more than being able to afford something!
OSX has roots that have drawn deeply from unix and open source. And by the graces of this openness, Apple is not required to similarly be open. And that may well be best, at least economically for them and for a good, solid consumer experience.
Apple did a beautiful job with OSX.
technically, what I'm saying is that they're breaking the law just to install the OS they've criticized and vilified for so long.
The Original Mac was just a "graphical toy" which was useless--until they got Windows 3. Then they claimed MS had caught up to the Mac, a platform they'd been dissing as inferior all along.
Huh?
And this pattern repeated over and over again with each new release of Windows.
For the record, they didn't catch up, these people just failed to appreciate the work and innovation that'd gone into it in the first place.
The benefit of "wide hardware choices" all run contrary to Apple's primary goal of the best Usability Experience possible. That's Apple's choice and I've always considered it the best one.
Have you ever watched Windows install itself? They expose the names of the hardware chips as the progress goes along. Do I really need to know the chipset used for bluetooth on my hardware? No, I really don't, but it flies by me in DOS text-mode, white text on garish blue background. Do I need to know what hardware is used in the iSight camera on my MacBook Pro? No, but when I "add new hardware" under Bootcamp (a Mac booting right into Windows), I don't see hardware component part numbers, so I don't. I see things like: "installing Apple iSight", "adding support for Intel Chipset", etc.
In other words, even in the installation i'm getting feedback that's valuable and that I can understand. When Bootcamp support is complete, I know that the hardware that's specific to a Mac and not to a generic box is in place.
If you can't afford a $600 Mac mini, or a year-old MacBook just to get your feet wet, what are you really talking about here?
And you're right: Apple's not required to be similarly open, BUT THEY ARE. You can download all of Darwin for free. Many, many companies have used and modified WebKit, WebCore and Javascript Core.
The old saw about affordability is simply invalid. Apple may not have a bare bones box to compete in the WalMart space, but in the spaces in which they do compete, the pricing is similar.
And do you think design isn't part of the value of a machine? Then buy a PC. Do you think all the media apps you get witha new Mac don't add value? Then buy a PC—and download iTunes and Safari for free.
There are a class of people who won't admit they're wrong until enough time has passed that it costs them nothing to make such an admission. And that's been the Windows "everyone else is doing it so it must be the best" believers and the linux weenies who want to build everything themselves.
And guess what? There are Windows boxes out there for the Windows believers and linux boxes out there for the linux weenies.
And on my MacBook Pro, I can run all three at the same time, side by side by side.
Well, I'm not really sure who Linux weenies are any more. There seems to be a growing number of people using Linux distributions like Ubuntu, which is geared toward the well-thought-out, simple to use (intuitive), and keeping what's going on "under the hood" hidden from the end user. Unless they choose to open the hood, which they are welcome to do.
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. And there is a blurred line for many people between what an OS is, and what the user interface is.
And virtualization is really neat. I have a friend who runs a Mac and plays World of Warcraft with it installed in a virtualized Windows installation -- claiming that it plays way smoother than on a Windows box. Whether that is because of the software or the hardware, I have no idea. I imagine it's a combination of both.
I think it's the short-sighted Linux geeks that initially spurred me to comment, who want to build everything themselves. Mac's OSX comes from people who wanted to build it for themselves -- Apple drew deeply from their work. And I should say, the Linux-ish people, because those people probably weren't, at the time, working on Linux. Those people aren't your mostly common Linux geeks that you hear rattling sabres along the lines of the OS and UI skirmishes. But those Linux geeks who work a lot on open stuff do manage to contribute a lot of useful and neat things that both OSX and Windows people benefit from -- and they have helped to reshape the "rules" and what is considered important in the information systems world.
I don't know if that says anything about their short-sightedness or long-sightedness -- I think it does say something about their fixations or passions -- and their interest and motivations. Science needs to share and collaborate. Science needs to be open.
Personally, I see nothing bad or wrong at all if someone wants to find a way to get OSX running on different kinds of hardware. The only downside would be if the hardware compatibility or quality was poor, which means the consumer might end up disappointed with their purchase. And maybe people might say, oh, OSX sucks if their computer is crashing all the time because it's not running on Apple hardware.... but I think they are smarter than that.
Apple has done some truly astonishing things, and I'm sure they will continue to. But they have done and continue to do all they can to lure people in and lock them into their product streams. I don't think that they do this with an entirely "evil" motivation in marketing, either. I think they do it, just as much, to make certain that people always get the good quality with Apple -- buy using stuff that's designed to work elegantly well together.
It does seem a little silly wanting to have OSX running on fairly random hardware configurations. OSX is just one part of what an Apple product is. I guess what I'm trying to say is, why not let them have their freaky fun? If nothing else, I'm sure it will be a great learning experience.
And to be nice to the Linux-y people. :) At least the Linux-y people who are more about the science behind the information stuff, rather than the people who are about the OS saber rattling. OSX wouldn't be what it is, without those kinds of people. The Windows people, well, I don't care, living in their plastic Lego factories.
Did I say that? Hmm. I guess I did.